Simulated Problems While Instructing

[Geigo]

Seems like some people have an over imaginative mind.

The pre-flight competition it is for the students. I get them in groups of 2-3 and let them go for it. Sometime the instructors or commercial pilots try it an get big things like a wad of tape marked "wasp nest" on the pitot tube, but miss the tape marked "tread showing" on the bottom of the tire. By the way who said anything about ALTERING the aircraft? No, I don't do anything requiring a 337, the parts are all there and even work properly! At worst let the air out of one tire. Mostly things like a piece of tape that says "Crack" along the gear struts, a piece of straw from the side of the cowling where a bird "built" a nest way back in there, etc. The aircraft I instruct in are well maintained, but many places are not. I know one guy not be able to figure out he had unplugged his headset, freak out about not talking to ATC and land a 182 at 110kts then lock the brakes trying to get it stopped. Before I got to him he tied it down and left without telling anyone about bare threads on the mains! I want students to be able to look for little things that might give indications of a big problem. As a free lance instructor this wouldn't be effective if even possible for Flywithastick.

I used the piston because it was what was available and it was big enough to see easily. Do pistons fall out of an engine, no, but what else might? I have a question for Rush. If you found a part lying under your aircraft would you wonder if it was from yours, or just ignore it? About a year ago a student stopped in while on a cross-country. Upon leaving he got part way to the runway and said the aircraft could only turn one direction. After getting back to the ramp I saw the scissors on the nose strut were separated. Right where it was parked was the bolt that had fallen off. The mechanic said if he had taken-off the nose gear would have fallen off. The object is to get the student to think about things!

These things are not done on the clock and they aren't charged a cent. Who said learning can't be fun? Incidentally none of my students have busted and they finish in the 45-55 hour range. The only one over that could only fly once every two weeks, sometimes once per week.

Flywithastick wanted things for GA and I thought this might help. If it doesn't apply or don't like the idea, don't use it. If you do, go for it. It's all about teaching students to be a safe pilot in a way they understand.


Fly Safe

 

[rumpletumbler]

Larry,

(snicker) Next time light and throw a couple of flares in the baggage area before you do this and pin a suicide note to your chest and then open your captian crunch secret decoder ring and take out the flintstones vitamin (prior you have shaped it like a govt issued cyanide tablet) eat the tablet while switching the fuel off with your toes and bite the ketchup packs. Of course you have lined the baggage area with a suitable for the task flame retardant "something" before the student got there and because he has never had this type of training he won't notice during preflight. You must test the students ability to multitask as well.

RT

 

[Rick1128]

tdvalve

Every time I have done that, it was under very control conditions. Over the airport, usually higher than traffic pattern altitude and keeping very aware of the conditions including traffic. If there was any question, it wasn't done at that time. It is a great confidence builder for the student. First he/she learns that the aircraft doesn't fall out of the sky when the prop stops. No matter what you say, they always have that question in the back of their heads, until they see it for themselves. Also they know they have to get it right the first time, and with an instructor's guidence they will. It still continues to amaze me how close they will come to the centerline and the touchdown zone in this situation.

As for the curriculum, it covers emergencies, it does specify. Besides as far as the curriculum is concerned it is my personal belief that the FAA's strict adherance to a curriculum turns out a mediocre pilot. A curriculum is for guidence only. It tells you what has got to be covered, not how to cover it. It is also a minimum standard.

And last, bt least, I like sleeping at night. I am bothered enough by dispatch, I don't need to lose any sleep over my past and present students, woundering if I gave them everything they needed to know.

 

[skytrucker]

"Now its a real emergency!!"

tdvalve is right on the money. Making the spinny-thing, no worky is not very safe.

Two major points:

1. Go to the NTSB accident web site and have fun reading about all the CFI's who had it "completely under control".

2. Go back to that CFI PTS you forgot to read and look up the part about specifically NOT using the mixture/ fuel cut-off. It's there for a reason.


I'm all for making instructing more real, but there is a line you don't need to cross. Sometimes it's easy to forget that it is your life and your students that is at stake if a mistake get made or tired engine thinks its done for the day.

Fly safe

 

[Rush Limbaugh]

I have a question for Rush. If you found a part lying under your aircraft would you wonder if it was from yours, or just ignore it?

That is just one of those things I wouldn't think you'd have to "test" a student on. If you have a student where you feel the need to do that kind of stuff to know he is doing a good walkaround, you should fire that person as a student. It is the only way you will keep him from becoming an NTSB statistic.

I personally think the FAA does a pretty good job with the PTS to ensure all student pilots learn what they need to be safe while flying. If they thought you needed to see a prop stopped in flight, it would be a requirement. There are probably more people injured and more airplanes bent from CFI's being creative with engine failures and screwing it up than there are when low time private pilots lose an engine and crash. Why? Because when you shut the engine down, you are comforatable with what's happenning. After all, you are in control. As far as the student who is flying the airplane, he may not feel like he is on control but I guarantee you he is thinking that the "experienced" pilot that is sitting next to him would never let anything bad happen. So what is Mr. CFI going to do? How much is he going to let his student screw up to accomplish a learning objective? I can see it now, "we're not going to make this so I'm going to restart the engine....uhh ohhhh....brace for impact." IMHO, shutting an engine down in flight will accomplish absolutely nothing except get your ticket yanked by the FAA or even worse, get your life yanked by God.

 

[ShawnC]

Center:"123AB I can barely hear of over the noise"
*Couple of minutes later 123AB replies crystal clear*
"Center 123AB is this better I turned off the engine"
*dead silence*

 

[bobbysamd]

Simulated "emergencies"

Originally posted by Rick1128

First of all, ALL emergencies need to be discussed BEFORE the lesson. It is the only way the student will get the full benifit of the lesson. The instructor does not have to tell the student exactly when it will occur. As an instructor you're not there to trick or surprise the student, but to expand his knowledge.

Agreed.

At least once during primary training the student needs to see the propeller stopped inflight. The dynamics of gliding with the prop stopped is different than when it is windmilling. Right over the airport, uncontrolled prefered. It can be a great confidence builder.

(emphasis added)
I object strenously to that one. That's scary. To stop an engine inflight on a single is setting up a potential real emergency. Weigh the benefits against having to explain it to FSDO, not to mention the unsafe aspects. On the other hand . . . .

In multi engine aircraft, I always had my students completely shut down an engine at least once. Then when it happens for real, it is not so much of a shock. It's fun to see the look in the student's face when he/she looks at the visible prop blade. . . . .

I agree with that one wholeheartedly. Make sure you have plenty of altitude and are relatively near the airport. Now, that really is a confidence-builder, to let your student maneuver the airplane with one caged, to show that it can be done, and to dispel the old wive's tale that you shouldn't turn into the dead engine. It's also a great demonstration at high altitude in a Seminole, when your student sees that despite his/her best efforts, the airplane decends.

When I was instructing at a flight school, pilot controlled lighting was common. I would have my students land without landing lights. And at least once land without runway lights. After a couple of landings with the runway lights . . . .

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

Before I would sign a student off for his/her checkride, I would instruct them in downwind takeoffs and landing. I would discuss the dynamics and the effects. Reason for this there are many one way airports, terrain, noise or local convention being the the reasons. It would get their attention. The amount of runway used changes dramicly. With my instrument students, I would have them shoot approaches and land downwind. Always keep in mind tailwind limitations and/or performance.

Agreed, again.

Besides the normal covering of gyros. I would cover airspeed indicator or tach. In complex aircraft would cover tach or MP gauges. It is surprising how close the student would come to getting the right setting.

Agreed, again, and try covering the altimeter in the pattern for a similar surprise about leveling off at TPA.

On the second dual cross country, I would tell the student to just consider me a passenger. He/she would do everything on their own. Liked to do this on a hazy day, not much more than 3 miles vis. While enroute I would distract them and get them turned around. Then I would start acting like a panicked passenger. Then I would let them try to figure where they were and how to get to where they were going. Usually they would dig themselves out of the hole. But if they needed help, I would ask them about the VOR, 'What does this do?' or point to the radio and ask 'Can't you call someone?' At this point I would introduce radar vectors or DF steers. This exercise allowed them st see in a controlled setting that they can work their way out of a situation. So if it did happen on their solo cross countries, they were less likely to panick.

I always had my students call FSS and ask for a practice DF. FSS always obliged and thanked us for the practice. That told me that DFing isn't taught that much.

[A] problem or two for the student, especially after solo, will keep them sharp. Tape on the pitot tupe or static port. A flat tire or miss tire. Don't be surprised how many miss them. Dual flights only and keep track of them . . . .

We had a stage check pilot at FSI who would tape a piece of freezer tape to the belly of an airplane. Invariably, the student would miss it. The stage check pilot would ask the student how come he didn't report the rip in the fuselage.

I would also mix avgas with jet fuel. A potential problem. It is not easy to see.

Agreed.

Like my old Sergeant used to say "Stay alert, Stay alive". It holds true almost everywhere. Be Careful.

Well said.

 

[jsoceanlord]

a short safety lecture; i had an instructor who was sure that there were more accidents from simulating engine failures than from the real thing.